this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024

8 points (59.5% liked)

Middle East and North Africa

71 readers

1 users here now

Rules:

Rule 0. Comments must be on topic, off topic comments lead to immediate ban. Off topic comments are any comments that will lead to diverging from the post's topic. If you want to discuss something post about it.

Rule 1. No refutation without a source. Any bias against MENA sources could lead to a ban if not backed with evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

Rule 2. This community is first and foremost for people from the region. Foreigners trying to justify military intervention or genocide are not welcomed.

Breaking of these rules may result in a 500-3000 day ban.

founded 8 months ago

MODERATORS

PanArab@lemm.ee

Who Decided to Deploy 1/3 of the US Navy to the Middle East? (files.mastodon.social)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by PanArab@lemm.ee to c/mena@lemm.ee

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://xcancel.com/amuse/status/1824938452581822862#m

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

AFAIK a lot are there to protect trading ship routes that have been attacked by rebels or so.

Some were probably helping with the makeshift port they wanted to use to supply trapped starving Palestinians.

Dunno who authorized it, but it's also not important, because those ships are cruising around in international waters anyway. They minimize the time docked in ports for strategic reasons. They also get authorization from that nation when entering territorial waters, except if they are in a hostile situation with that nation, of course.

[+] PanArab@lemm.ee -7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

AFAIK a lot are there to protect trading ship routes that have been attacked by rebels or so.

A failed mission so far, and could have been avoided if they stopped the genocide in Gaza. The Yemeni military said so multiple times they will stop if the genocide stops.

Some were probably helping with the makeshift port they wanted to use to supply trapped starving Palestinians.

Another failed mission and unnecessary. The US could have demanded Israel open up its ports and border crossings for aid. The US could have conditioned the bombs it sends to facilitate the genocide on allowing aid in.

Dunno who authorized it, but it’s also not important, because those ships are cruising around in international waters anyway. They minimize the time docked in ports for strategic reasons. They also get authorization from that nation when entering territorial waters, except if they are in a hostile situation with that nation, of course.

All I see is legitimate non-grata targets, I won't act on it, but others in the region might.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Legitimate targets for what? Who wants to fight the US Navy?

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee -4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Legitimate targets for what?

Who! not what, we are people too.

Legitimate targets for anyone with honor and dignity. People normally don't like foreign soldiers strutting around their land or water. I know you wouldn't tolerate Chinese or Russian navies doing the same. Don't expect us to accept what you wouldn't.

Who wants to fight the US Navy?

Lots do. Even if the means are limited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My question was for what actions? Do you seriously think you can sink a US warship? At least pretend to be credible when making inane threats.

That said, the last foreign army occupying my homeland was Russian, depending on whether you consider foreign Chinese policemen on your streets a foreign army.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you seriously think you can sink a US warship?

I can't but someone in the region might be able to.

the last foreign army occupying my homeland was Russian

then you should be able to relate instead of ridicule

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If someone there managed to sink a US warship, the US will invade and destroy everything in the area in response. That is an escalation no one wants. They're attacking civilian shipping because they can't fight back effectively.

The US destroyed Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 and they didn't even have anything to do with it.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

The Afghans won and the US left humiliated in the end. Not a bad outcome.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think they meant "what" would attacking them accomplish. It just starts a useless fight with nothing to gain.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There is a lot to be gained even if each and every projectile is shot down. It is a war of attrition.

A $2M missile vs. a $2,000 drone: Pentagon worried over cost of Houthi attacks

“That quickly becomes a problem because the most benefit ... is in their favor,” one expert said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/missile-drone-pentagon-houthi-attacks-iran-00132480

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't see how that helps anyone. They both lose; just at different rates.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Would you say the same for Ukrainians fighting Russian forces on their land?

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, because driving a ship somewhere to protect a trading route or build a port is not an invasion. The ships will go away, once the mission is over, but russia wants to stay forever in Ukraine and make it part of russia.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

The blockade is on Israeli ships and ships going to ports in Occupied Palestine. It is a response to the genocide in Gaza and therefore justified. The Yemeni forces made it clear they will stop when the genocide and blockade on Gaza stops.

Ships going to Israel bringing food and products are legitimate targets, so are Israeli ships, Palestinians in Gaza can’t even get food, why should genocidal settlers? What the Yemenis are doing is in accordance with international law and every country should do what it can to stop a genocide.

What Yemen has done was successful in bankrupting an Israeli port in Occupied Palestine and causing inflation in the Zionist colony.

Because of US and UK violence, the blockade was expanded to include US and UK ships as well. Totally justified.

The Yemenis have every right to refuse passage to ships associated with genocidal maniacs and their enablers.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lots do. Even if the means are limited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

Notice the USS Cole is still there. I guarantee they're still pissed about that. Not the ship you want to target again. They're likely to overreact.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

We are betting on their overreaction. The US was defeated in Afghanistan and it can be defeated again.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

AIPAC

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Is asking to be left alone too much?

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You’re not asking to be left alone, you deliberately incite

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

Yes, we placed our countries next to and around US troops and bases.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I didn't realize attacking civilian cargo vessels indiscriminately was "asking to be left alone".

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What Yemen has done was successful in bankrupting an Israeli port in Occupied Palestine and causing inflation in the Zionist colony.

Because of US and UK violence, the blockade was expanded to include US and UK ships as well. Totally justified.

The Yemenis have every right to refuse passage to ships associated with genocidal maniacs and their enablers.